Trotwood-Madison vs. Winton Woods
.jpg)
2009-10 UD men's basketball
Pyramid Hill lights up
Home > Blogs > Uncorked > Archives > 2006 > January > 08 > Entry
The Owner of ‘Wine Opinions’ Research Firm Responds
On Dec. 28, I posted an entry entitled Decanter Magazine vs. Robert Parker: a Good Ole’ Cat Fight, about the escalating rhetoric between the British-based magazine and the world’s most influential wine critic.
That posting prompted a couple of e-mails from John Gillespie, owner of Wine Opinions, a research firm whose survey of wine drinkers was part of the brouhaha. Gillespie corrected me that …
… it was him, and not Decanter magazine, which issued the press release that suggested a “backlash” against Parker’s influence on wine-buying decisions. The magazine did send out an e-mail alert to the survey and released it under its “Latest News” heading late last month.
Here are excerpts of what else Gillespie had to say:
I am the owner of Wine Opinions, an Internet consumer research provider to the wine industry. My partner, Christian Miller, and I have more consumer research experience in the U.S. wine industry than anyone else. I also am the president of Wine Market Council, a non-profit trade association working to increase wine consumption in the U.S. Our Wine Market Council ongoing consumer research dates back to 1994. We are, in fact, holding a conference in St. Helena to announce the results of the most recent council research.
As you can see (from the Wine Opinions original press release), Decanter did not “glean a backlash.” We used the term to describe the fact that for every person who finds Parker’s ratings somewhat or very influential, there are three people who go out of their way to say he exerts absolutely no influence on them.
Please note that we make no analysis or qualitative judgment of Mr. Parker’s ratings or his point-of-view. We do state in the study that he is indeed quite influential with a significant number of high-end consumers - more, in fact, than the sum total of persons who either read the Wine Advocate or visit Parker’s site. We merely point out that he also carries significantly higher negative consumer responses than any other critical venue. Decanter and everyone else who reviews our survey results can draw their own conclusions, but the creation, execution, and analysis that comprises the Core Track report (of which the Parker/Spectator influence segment was one of several) is peer-reviewable and scientifically sound.
I e-mailed Mr. Gillespie a few questions about the use of the term “backlash,” which I thought suggested a change in consumers’ opinions over time, and about our not being able to see the wording of the questions without paying the nearly $500 Wine Opinions is charging for copies of the study. He replied:
Our use of the term “backlash” was not to describe an event over time (we might have used “erosion,” “reversal,” or “waning” of influence if that is what we had meant). This is not a study comparing responses over time, though we will ask this question again in a survey next year and at that point we will have tracking data. Backlash can, indeed, imply an event over time, but it also means an adverse reaction to a thing or event. In this case, what we mean is that Parker’s high negative ratings counter the small but strongly positive response to his reviews. Again, we do not conclude that Robert Parker is either not influential or is losing his influence, only that he polarizes high end consumers to the extent that his negatives (lowest rating) outweigh his positives (top two ratings) by a ratio of 3 - 1. The key point is not that Parker has fewer people citing him as very or extremely influential - it’s that the distribution of his ratings between none to moderately influential is extremely skewed towards “1 (no influence at all)” when compared to other media sources. For example, Parker elicits more than twice the percentage of negative “1” ratings as does the Wine Spectator - or any other media venue included in the survey.
While we have not posted the survey questionnaire itself, there are a number of charts and graphs on the Wine Opinions site that show data taken directly from the response tabulations. You can see these at this link: http://wineopinions.com/december-core-track.html#. We do not release the questionnaire, full data tabulations or the report itself, because it is for sale, and has already been purchased by leading wine producers, importers, and wholesalers in the U.S.
So there you have some clarifying comments from Mr. John Gillespie.
Cheers!
Mark Fisher
Comments
By Michael
January 13, 2006 1:10 AM | Link to this
Greetings. As a wine retailer, I get to hear many comments from not only our various wine vendors but our customers as well. One of the oft repeated comments about this discussion is that while Mr. Parker is undoubtedly a true wine connoisseur and passionate consumer his are but one set of taste buds which may or may not have any similarities to those end-consumers who are actually purchasing and drinking the wines out there for sale. Many a wine drinker has come across that one fantastic, mouth-watering-at-the-thought bottle, only to see some rather unimpressed stares looking back from across the dinner table when sharing this wonderful wine with friends/fellow wine lovers. What pleases and/or impresses my palate may not be of any interest to a fellow devotee. One of the things that people seem to enjoy about other wine events/publications (blogs) is the varied panel of tasters and patrons. I always enjoy listening to many other people’s feedback at the various wine tastings around the region to see what not just one person thinks or tastes in the wine but whether others seem to find similar flavors, aromas, nuances, etc. These are the wines that I try to keep on my shelves to keep the majority of my customers interested yet without boring them with the “same old thing”. I would prefer to have my own local neighborhood “Mr. P.” (or many of them) to compare notes with and enjoy the tastings in person that to simply read a celebrity’s opinion and buy whatever they are currently suggesting on blind faith alone. Whatever your tastes… Enjoy Michael @ Bee-Gee’s Mkt. KetteringBy cathy
January 9, 2006 1:54 PM | Link to this
From Wikipedia: “‘backlash’ is a somewhat popular extreme negative reaction against something which had gained popularity, prominence, or influence.” So how can you say that there is a backlash if you never studied before whether Robert Parker had an influence? Also, I don’t understand Mr. Gillespie’s repeated comments (here and in his original press release) that survey respondents “went out of their way” to indicate that RP exerts absolutely no influence on them. What does it mean for respondents to go “out of their wayâ€? to select the option labeled “no influence at allâ€?, as opposed to selecting the option “moderately influential,â€? “very influential,â€? or “extremely influentialâ€? ? To me, going “out of their way” when completing a survey would be something more radical than just choosing a “1” instead of a “2” or “3.” Additionally, saying “no influenceâ€? is not necessarily a “negativeâ€? finding, as Mr. Gillespie suggests. Rather (as Paul eloquently pointed out in an earlier thread), a “negativeâ€? influence is when a high Parker rating influences you to purchase a different. I think Mr. Gillespie presents his data results with a slanted view. Perhaps his raw data has scientific merit (we’ll never know unless we pay the $500 to see it), but his discussions of the results seem biased and misleading.By Mark Fisher
January 9, 2006 7:07 AM | Link to this
Mr. Gillespie’s firm is based in St. Helena, California. MarkBy spratt
January 8, 2006 11:47 PM | Link to this
May we assume that the dear delightful Mr. Gillespie is from jolly ‘ole England….and that he, in his charming British way, is spewing wine-politico gibberish????